About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
draconian cuts, harry reid and mitch mcconnell said there's a select committee that will spread the cuts all over, you know, over evenly, and that didn't happen, bottom line is, listen, this has been up for a year, and i, and others sai, let's get to it, get to it, and they did everything but this. they are on vacation now. they should have come back last week if it's that important. it doesn't get down. i hope i'm wrong, but people are depending on a type of certainty and stability. lou: interesting difference of view in the republican party. speaker boehner in his op-ed this week acknowledges that there would be significant disruptions as a result of sequester going into effect, yet, most of the republican parties say this is what we need, see spending cuts, need to take if on even if it's across the board and arbitrary. there is a real division right now working the republican party apparently; is that right? >> i have not heard so much let's just make the cuts and about it. i'm in the pentagon. i'll serve next week again, and i'm working in the national guard bureau, and that's all they
could bring this -- harry reid could bring this up and could have been working on it from day one, they have done the dog and pony show, with political theater of joint chiefs coming and everyone saying oh, this is terrible, this is terrible, and then they go on vacion, bottom line, they have been elected to do a job, and solve the problems, what do they do? they go onacation. they should have immediately been brought back. with all of the stuff going on with north africa, and syria and afghanistan, and other hot areas, what are they focused on? who are they going do layoff? how are they going to be laid off? when about contractual obligations, and union obligations, is it payback after in terms of us paying fines. neil: who came up with it? you were there. the president said, it was really a republican creation, and republicans say it was the president's creation. i remember covering it at the time. i was not in the seams of it, as you were, but it was like for both sides a back up backbone. like if we can't agree, maybe these cuts held in reserve will be there to make us come up
to senate democratic leader harry reid who did not get a call from the president today and bush and to pass one of two house republican plans to stop the sequestered. cantor declaring house republicans have acted, and it is time for the president and senate democrats to join us. it is time to get off of the campaign trail and get to work, show us with spending reductions you prefer and let's find some common ground. in a tit-for-tat fight, carney brought out shots on the president's own plans to cut spending and tried to turn the blame game back on publicans. >> there will be jobs and if the sequester takes place. the president will, as he continues to do, call on republicans in congress to agree to avoid the sequestered because it is a wholly unnecessary will run the economy if it were to take place. >> except there were others in the president's party like former democratic national committee chairman howard dean suggesting the president should let the sequester happen to slice the pentagon's budget. telling the huffington post, i am in favor of the sequestered. it is tough on things
of the campaign trail in this senate democratic leader harry reid to pass one of two house bills that would block the fourth cuts. >> for 16 months the president had been traveling all of the country holding rallies instead of sitting down with senate leaders in order to try to forge an agreement over there in order to move the bill. we have moved the bill in the house twice. we should not have to move a third bill before the senate gets off their butt and begins to do something. >> the president of the pressure on him by bringing the local republican congressman thomas got virgil, border force one where the congressman told reporters that in addition to spending cuts he favors raising revenues through tax reform and then got a presidential shot up. >> is one of your republican congressman who is with us here today, and that is always healthy for public and, being with me. but the reason he's doing it is because he knows is important to you. and he has asked his colleagues in the house to consider closing tax loopholes instead of letting these automatic cuts go through. lori: -- >> reporter: quic
to harry reid, nancy closely really also concur with. the math doesn't add up, if you can tax the rich at 100% it would not come close to covering our needs, this is a reallocation problem, this is a bad math problem and we can't sustain this and we want a government there is an argument to be made that they do want a bigger, better government, you will have to pay for it. you will have to pay a lot for people to provide, what you think of that? >> exactly. the path we're on right now is unsustainable. either we go the path europe has gone down with a statement economy and cons of unemployment, tons of people taxed to death, or the other path with a more economic freedom and people can decide what they want to do, government isn't taking care of you from cradle to grave and they make that hard choice because this is not sustainable. neil: could also be stating something america's might well come and be willing to pay a little bit more if they have a government that will do a little bit, presumably a lot more and might be okay with it but throwing it out there that it is inevitable, so
when he says harry reid says this, chuck schumer says is, we don't have a spending problem, it is a revenue issue, we have to get more taxes. what you say? are they smoking something? >> we have a spending problem. >> i am just saying, why can't they be like an alcoholic? >> to your earlier point, everybody is talking around the edges right now. entitlements, 60% of our budget is captured. >> well, i was going to say, let's be clear. what we are actually looking at is $44 billion. 1% of the federal budget in fiscal year 2013. even with sequestration, we will spend more than 2013 we spend in 2012. we have a spending problem, absolutely. but we do not necessarily have a revenue problem in the sense that revenues are at or near all-time highs. what we do have is an inability to match things with our revenue. we should be spending something closer to what we were spending last year of the bill. >> i think it could quickly get the ball rolling. i just think that we have to get past the blame game. you know, it's sort of like this are not. >> sequestration is something we can go
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)